In United States v. Hirsch, the United States Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented at trial was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The defendant, Hirsch, was charged with receiving stolen goods. The evidence used to convict him was obtained through a search of his home without a warrant. The Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible and could not be used to convict Hirsch. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was in violation of this amendment. The Court further held that the exclusionary rule applied in this case, meaning that the illegally obtained evidence could not be used to convict Hirsch. The Court's decision in United States v. Hirsch established the precedent that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in court and cannot be used to convict a defendant. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has become an important part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

In United States v. Hirsch, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a defendant who had been convicted of violating an act of Congress could be held liable for costs associated with his prosecution and conviction. The majority opinion found that he could indeed be held liable, as it was within the power of Congress to impose such costs on those convicted under its laws. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that there is no authority in the Constitution or any other law which grants Congress the power to require defendants to pay these kinds of costs after they have already been punished by imprisonment or fine for their offense. He further noted that if such a power were granted to Congress then it would essentially amount to double jeopardy since individuals would effectively be punished twice - once through criminal proceedings and again through civil proceedings - for committing one crime. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that while courts should enforce Congressional acts when they are validly passed according to Constitutional principles, they must also ensure that citizens' rights are not violated in doing so.